More information : TQ 3939 7728; Possible ridge-and-furrow recorded during the RCHME Greenwich Park Survey, Sep-1993 to Feb-1994.
A series of low, straight ridges and hollows running north to south for roughly 50m, parallel to a broad bank, perhaps a field boundary (see TQ 37 NE 110). The ridges are contained within a triangular area defined by the Flower Garden to the south, the bank on the east and the Great Cross Avenue to the north, apparently overlain by the latter. They resemble plantation ridges or ridge and furrow cultivation (1).
The Park is unlikely to have been subject to arable cultivation after its enclosure in 1433, but may have been ploughed earlier in the Medieval period. The licence granted to Humphhrey, Duke of Gloucester, bequeaths '200 acres....of their land, pasture, wood heath, virses, and gorse thereof to make a park at Greenwich' (1a) and, in this context, it seems probable that the word `land' is used in the sense of 'unit of [arable] cultivation' (2). (1-2)
See survey plan at 1:1000 scale archived with record TQ 37 NE 69 (UID 610590) (1).
About seven ridges were seen, each approximately 0.2m high extending for some 30m to 50m on a north west – south east alignment. This area of ridge and furrow was indistinct due to later tree planting, but does not coincide with the lines of trees, and is therefore not related to the tree planting. Running parallel to the ridge and furrow on its east side is a linear bank thought to be a field boundary.
The fragments of ridge and furrow all lie in the hinterland of the Park and away from likely settlement areas on the River front. There may have been medieval settlement in the Park area on the medieval road lines, but no evidence has come to light despite surveys having been done. If settlement was associated with the fragments of ridge and furrow it appears to have been destroyed. The vestiges of the ridge and furrow which survive are so limited as not to be able to derive any indication of their full extent or associations. Because one cannot date such remains by form with any accuracy, and as no interventions have taken place which might provide dating evidence for either the ridges or the buried ground surface beneath, it is impossible to accurately date the areas of ridge and furrow. Because it is not possible to ascribe either date or settlement to the remaining fragments, scheduling is not recommended at this time. (3)
|